Constitutional Reform

[William Ashley]

Irrelevant.

I'll take that as a no.

Yes, it argues you wrong.

Actually it argues that I don't feel like discussing that issue. If you'd like to discuss it we can, it would be more interesting if I was getting paid to discus it though.

Name one country that does not have a constitution.

Try reading the post you are supposedly responding to. Two modern examples are right there, and there are others. You of course need to define constitution and how it is separate from administrative law.

-- The real problem with discussing things with you is that you don't have any idea how law actually works fundamentally.

Edited September 8, 2011 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

Been to Oktoberfest.

Sorta. I've never broken out the laterhosen or a stein but I've lived in KW so I've been loosely involved in some activities, such as the Oktoberfest Parade. I don't drink socially (very often) though, or attempt to limit it to when I travel. Definitely not in a public venue where people or administrative managers may be.

I actually know a family member of one of the KW festhall operators. But I really bad around alcohol. I really can't drink as a hobby, it isn't in my blood.

Also while i do have a signed Walter Ostenek record, I'm a real music snob, and while the accordian is interesting, I think I'll wait a few more years to mellow down to fully enjoy polka. Also I'm not big on rock etc.. the venues are mostly geared toward every type of music I don't prefer to listen to. I'm very streamlined for the music I like - except for the odd hit factor. That's me. I do respect the fest though, both in KW and Bavaria, as I very much value culture and octoberfest represent that - even if not my own idea of a fest for myself - now if they brought in talla2xlc, pvd, armin sven vath (maybe some kraftwerk etc.. I very much might show up to that tent. - maybe beta will bring in some germans for octoberfest (it apparently was rated one of the top 30 clubs in the world, and is also in kw)

Edited September 8, 2011 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

First Nations peoples within Canada are sovereign only so far as they are separate, independent jurisdictions under the Canadian Crown. They aren't sovereign outside of that.

Just the same that Canada isn't sovereign outside its own unilaterally declared jurisdictions.

What is the difference, all it takes is a statement of claim to have jurisdiction somewhere then there is a martial contest or revision of territories. What does it matter. Canada has no more rights in reality than joe blow. They just have a larger military to back it up.

When we talk about sovereignty we are talking about an inviolate right to self determination, which everyone has, and a people united may exercise, first 'nations' as people have the right to make their own laws governing themselves. They do not rely on Canada to let them govern themselves. There just may be a martial context if laws contradict or cause a necessity of oppression of their rights, hence a breach of the peace and acts of war, from a Canadian law enforcement perspective.

Canada has no rights over me. They only have force to be applied against me. I am not bound by Canadian law. (because I have not consented to it) I am a free person. This does not mean that I will come into conflict with the law however, unless that law is unsound, and contrary to freedom, reason, and good faith.

Its very clear that people need not submit to unjust unreasonable and irrational rule, but people ought to be respectful of cultures different to their own, if it doesn't compromise ones own moral integrities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

Jurisidiction turns to governance when rule of law is applied, and rule by force is exercised in upholding rule of law. Governance is not perpetual in a jurisdiction, nor is there an inability for jurisdictions to overlap or contradict one another.

Edited September 8, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

I am not bound by Canadian law. (because I have not consented to it).

Ah, so you are either not a Canadian citizen or not in Canada.

[g_bambino]

I'll take that as a no.

Take it as you wish. It remains irrelevant.

Actually it argues that I don't feel like discussing that issue.

You said my words were argumentative, not yours. I didn't argue that you don't feel like discussing the issue.

Two modern examples are right there.

You didn't specifically answer the question. And even if we take the names of the four countries you haphazardly drop in your diatribe, each of those has a constitution: the United Kingdom, the United States, Israel, and Canada. So, please name a country that does not have a constitution.

However, back to the point: If it's your personal opinion that First Nations reserves are sovereign territories, then so be it. One wonders, though, how you came to that conclusion, given the plethora of evidence to the contrary: The constitution and other laws clearly place reserves under the sovereignty of the Crown; no First Nation exchanges ambassadors with other countries; no First Nation is recognised internationally as a sovereign state; First Nations are subject to Canadian laws and have their cases heard in Canadian courts; First Nations leaders turn to the Queen as a mediator between they and the federal Cabinet; etc., etc.

[+]

Edited September 8, 2011 by g_bambino

[Rue]

.

However, back to the point: If it's your personal opinion that First Nations reserves are sovereign territories, then so be it. One wonders, though, how you came to that conclusion,

He uses quite a simple concept actually and I quote:

"...am not bound by Canadian law. (because I have not consented to it)."

Interestingly its an arguement his own leaders categorically rejected it because

if that was true, then the reverse would also have to hold true and we could then argue we are not bound by any of the treaties we signed and escape any further legal obligations to compensate the first nations peoples.

Mr. Bambino I give you cultural clearance to borrow the word "oy" and use it. You can use the word "vey" after "oy" as well.

Still good to see you taking the effort to try explain the constitution. You always do a good job of it.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Rue

[Saipan]

Interestingly its an arguement his own leaders categorically rejected it because

if that was true, then the reverse would also have to hold true and we could then argue we are not bound by any of the treaties we signed and escape any further legal obligations to compensate the first nations peoples.

REAL lawyer would find the treaties invalid long time ago. It was broken by natives themself and their use of alcohol (among other things)

There are LOT of outright illegalities in the "exception for natives".

[William Ashley]

Take it as you wish. It remains irrelevant.

You said my words were argumentative, not yours. I didn't argue that you don't feel like discussing the issue.

You didn't specifically answer the question. And even if we take the names of the four countries you haphazardly drop in your diatribe, each of those has a constitution: the United Kingdom, the United States, Israel, and Canada. So, please name a country that does not have a constitution.

Ah so you don't recognize the NTC eh? You seem to be missing the NTC comments in NTC vs. Libya and the NTC not having a constitution. I thought this might be relevant because you are so Canada this law canada that. Canada has recognized the NTC as the government of Libya but they don't have a constitution. Libya's constitution has Gaddafi as one of the head directors of the country. They don't seem to be following his instructions.

However, back to the point: If it's your personal opinion that First Nations reserves are sovereign territories, then so be it. One wonders, though, how you came to that conclusion, given the plethora of evidence to the contrary:

The constitution and other laws clearly place reserves under the sovereignty of the Crown;

That unilateral comment isn't sinking in, do you understand the word unilateral?

no First Nation exchanges ambassadors with other countries;

First nations are part of the UN.

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/declaration.html (Canada has since recognized the declaration)

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

no First Nation is recognized internationally as a sovereign state;

They are recognized.

(who did they sign treaty with?) Treaties arn't signed with Companies, contracts are. If they aren't sovereign the treaties and powers are absent and the treaties have no effect. I don't think you would say that is the case.

First Nations are subject to Canadian laws

Some may be. That is their choice.

and have their cases heard in Canadian courts; First Nations leaders turn to the Queen as a mediator between they and the federal Cabinet; etc., etc.

[+]

Often but not always. In dealings with Canada --- they are involved in other international dialogues including with China. When dealing with Canada they tend to deal with the courts or political channels. They use what they have access to just like me or you. Use what you got.

Edited September 8, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Ah so you don't recognize the NTC eh? You seem to be missing the NTC comments...

No, I just didn't have any idea what you meant by "NTC". Now that you mention it alongside "Libya", I've got what you're referring to: the National Transitional Council. Well, anyway, the NTC has a constitution.

[Saipan]

First nations are part of the UN.

So are dictatorships and other banana "states". No influence on Canada.

They are recognized.

Some are but some look pretty normal, without the feathers andd all.

In dealings with Canada --- they are involved in other international dialogues including with China.

Ah, another country with very rich dictatorial chiefs. Maybe they should ask for welfare from Beijing.

[jacee]

However, back to the point: If it's your personal opinion that First Nations reserves are sovereign territories, then so be it.

I think some of the confusion results from you tying 'sovereignty' to 'territories' when that is not the case. Sovereignty of First Nations/Indigenous Nations has absolutely nothing to do with reserve lands.

As William says ... individuals are sovereign.

Nations of people can be sovereign - ie people who share a common cultural heritage, treaties, laws and customs - even though they may live within a physical country. I'm NOT talking about land, but people or Peoples.

That, as I understand it, is the situation with Indigenous Peoples who live within Canada's geographic borders: They were sovereign nations of people before contact, they never surrendered their sovereignty, and they remain sovereign nations of people today. A person who leaves a reserve and lives in a Canadian city or in fact anywhere in the world is still a member of a sovereign Indigenous Nation.

Arguing about 'sovereign territories' is a futile distraction and an exercise in frustration that has no practical value.

[Saipan]

Some may be. That is their choice.

And Canada's choice is to throw them in jail if they don't abide. Lot of them already found out.

[Saipan]

Indigenous Peoples who live within Canada's geographic borders

Who exactly are "indigenous people"?

Like say in Europe for example, so it's more clear.

[William Ashley]

He uses quite a simple concept actually and I quote:

"...am not bound by Canadian law. (because I have not consented to it)."

Interestingly its an arguement his own leaders categorically rejected it because

if that was true, then the reverse would also have to hold true and we could then argue we are not bound by any of the treaties we signed and escape any further legal obligations to compensate the first nations peoples.

You are the one who is suppose to let the judge decide. Become a judge then you make perfect sense when speaking from a Canadian perspective, it has happened you know.

[William Ashley]

And Canada's choice is to throw them in jail if they don't abide. Lot of them already found out.

Wouldn't be the first time, probably not the last. This doesn't invalidate the point.

They have an 18 to 20 month time frame to adopt a constitution set out. They 'need to' have elections then adopt a constitution (definitely in that order) to be legitimized somewhat - even though it is a load of BS political junk behind their recognition anyway. (As the actions of NATO definitely violated the sovereign independence of Libya, and constituted supporting armed rebellion/insurrection and overthrow of a member government of the UN)

The saving grace is that it was a coupe stated supported by major leaders of the government (ironically appointed in the case of the de facto PM - westernization drive)

none the less You are wrong. Officially there is no constitution, and there is not a definite order - only a junta, and local councils that are somewhat self motivated.

There is no consent to rule, right now it is rule by force. i.e. martial order

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/31/libya-constitution-idUSL5E7JV2CF20110831

CONSTITUTION

The PNC will appoint a Constituent Authority for drafting a constitution which should submit a draft constitution to the PNC within 60 days of its first meeting.

Edited September 10, 2011 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

No, I just didn't have any idea what you meant by "NTC". Now that you mention it alongside "Libya", I've got what you're referring to: the National Transitional Council. Well, anyway, the NTC has a constitution.

No they don't.

They have various proposed constitutions none of which have been enacted.

Edited September 9, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

No they don't.

You must have missed the link I provided. Look again.

[g_bambino]

do you understand the word unilateral?

Certainly. Do you understand the word "constitution"?

First nations are part of the UN.

Name one First Nation with a seat in the General Assembly.

They are recognized.

Name which country exchanges ambassadors with which First Nation.

If they aren't sovereign the treaties and powers are absent and the treaties have no effect.

Nonsense. Treaties are contracts; why on earth do you think people keep talking about each party having to live up to its obligations as per the treaty agreement? Contracts don't have to be signed between sovereign entities; private companies subject to the Crown's laws enter into contract with the Crown all the time, as do semi-autonomous governments, like cities.

Some may be. That is their choice.

And see what happens when they choose not to be.

they are involved in other international dialogues including with China. When dealing with Canada they tend to deal with the courts or political channels.

I'm talking about law, not business dealings (and those which any First Nation undertakes are subject to Canadian laws). When it comes to the law, of course First Nations have to go to Canadian courts to work out disputes; First Nations are subject to the laws - constitutional and otherwise - that Canadian courts interperet. Like every other Canadian, the highest court an Aboriginal Canadian can take his case to is the Supreme Court, because that is where the Queen-on-the-Bench (in name, via her nine justices) makes the final decisions. Forgetting the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court's rulings are not null and void within First Nations jurisdiction, as they would be within the borders of another, actually sovereign country.

[+]

Edited September 9, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

I think some of the confusion results from you tying 'sovereignty' to 'territories.

No, not at all. See here for the definition of "sovereignty" being used.

[jacee]

No, not at all. See here for the definition of "sovereignty" being used.

It seems to me you are just playing word games. Carry on.

[g_bambino]

It seems to me you are just playing word games. Carry on.

It seems you were a participant in the "game" as well, and are now upset to find the rules aren't set by you.

[William Ashley]

Certainly. Do you understand the word "constitution"?

Name one First Nation with a seat in the General Assembly.

They are observers, much the same as the Knights St. John who are also a sovereign state.

Name which country exchanges ambassadors with which First Nation.

There are comminications inter alia with various parties not only other aborignal nations within Canada and abroad but also formal communications and pacts with state agents such as China.

Nonsense. Treaties are contracts; why on earth do you think people keep talking about each party having to live up to its obligations as per the treaty agreement? Contracts don't have to be signed between sovereign entities; private companies subject to the Crown's laws enter into contract with the Crown all the time, as do semi-autonomous governments, like cities.

Treaties are more than contracts they are agreements between states. Those treaties recognize them as seperate nations and sovereign.

And see what happens when they choose not to be.

Nothing. Many of those people are living their lives as you or I.

I'm talking about law, not business dealings (and those which any First Nation undertakes are subject to Canadian laws).

Ok what type of communications do sovereign entities have with one another? No business dealings? What about aid arrangements? Uhm, what about trade arrangements? What about land use arrangements? What about exchanges, including language exchanges? What about security arrangements?

When it comes to the law, of course First Nations have to go

No they don't and there are a variety of examples where things did not progress that way or still have not progressed that way. Often the reason why it ends up in court is because "Canada" gets militant with first nations. Violence has erupted in various standoffs. You need to recognize Canada resorts to application of force, not law.

to Canadian courts to work out disputes; First Nations are subject to the laws - constitutional and otherwise - that Canadian courts interperet. Like every other Canadian, the highest court an Aboriginal Canadian can take his case to is the Supreme Court, because that is where the Queen-on-the-Bench (in name, via her nine justices) makes the final decisions. Forgetting the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court's rulings are not null and void within First Nations jurisdiction, as they would be within the borders of another, actually sovereign country.

[+]

Actually rulings only have effects during a court case, law is a reference not a fact or act. People can do whatever they like, and if someone is offended by it, then there can be a court challenge or redress to resolve the matter. However people can break the law and not be guilty, much the same as laws can be changed or clarified. You live in a world that isn't based in reality. Atleast that is how it seems when you refer to contradictory and vague principles that arn't even solidified or at common law. Actually at common law the first nations are in right not Canada, because they have a greater right to stake in the land. It is Canada that needs their permission for use otherwise it is theft and tresspassing. Treaties are a way of saying it is ok for Canada to use the land, if they have violate their treaties they have no rights at Common law to use that land. Common law is the most powerful and supra vires law. To invalidate common law is to invalidate the will of the people. It is rational and applicable law, because it is manifest in the status quo ante diem.

If you view it as an annex, it is illegal in current international law to annex anther nations territory. As stated Canada has little if any absolute right to any territory within Canada. It is only by forced occupation that it exerts force and rule - rule by force, not rule of law, but the constitution invalidates that and declared Canada a free country that is ruled under rule of law, not rule of force. In many ways it is the British BNA that are occupying Canada, while Canada itself is going to be forced to be pacified to an advisory role in internal occupation of the territories within Canada. British law is static in Canada due to Westminster and the Canada act. It is not gone.

Edited September 9, 2011 by William Ashley

[jacee]

Certainly. Do you understand the word "constitution"?

Name one First Nation with a seat in the General Assembly.

Name which country exchanges ambassadors with which First Nation.

Nonsense. Treaties are contracts; why on earth do you think people keep talking about each party having to live up to its obligations as per the treaty agreement? Contracts don't have to be signed between sovereign entities; private companies subject to the Crown's laws enter into contract with the Crown all the time, as do semi-autonomous governments, like cities.

And see what happens when they choose not to be.

I'm talking about law, not business dealings (and those which any First Nation undertakes are subject to Canadian laws). When it comes to the law, of course First Nations have to go to Canadian courts to work out disputes; First Nations are subject to the laws - constitutional and otherwise - that Canadian courts interperet. Like every other Canadian, the highest court an Aboriginal Canadian can take his case to is the Supreme Court, because that is where the Queen-on-the-Bench (in name, via her nine justices) makes the final decisions. Forgetting the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court's rulings are not null and void within First Nations jurisdiction, as they would be within the borders of another, actually sovereign country.

[+]

The treaties are with the Crown and the Supreme Court - not our governments - represent the Crown. The treaties have the same weight as any international treaty. Treaty Law takes precedence over Constitutional Law, which takes precedence over Common Law.

They use the Canadian courts to get Canada to obey its own laws. Beyond the Supreme Court, they have access to the International courts as well. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission on residential schools resulted from a court action against Canada and is constructed according to International rules and overseen by the UN, just like the Rwanda Truth Commission, etc.

Our police do not enter their territory except by invitation/contract.

Edited September 9, 2011 by jacee

[g_bambino]

[T]he Supreme Court - not our governments - represent the Crown.

No, the Crown is a part of the Supreme Court (the Queen-on-the-Bench), just as it is a part of the government (the Queen-in-Council); both derive their authority from the Crown.

Treaty Law takes precedence over Constitutional Law.

No, treaties are part of the constitution, and no one part of the constitution supersedes another.

They use the Canadian courts to get Canada to obey its own laws.

As is the case with any other party with a grievance against the Crown; laws (passed by the Queen-in-Parliament) are often challenged by individuals or groups as being unconstitutional, for example. But, since the Supreme Court's jurisdiction does not end at the edges of the reserves, First Nations and the governing bodies thereof are under the Crown's authority, and therefore not sovereign.

I know you're trying to take this angle that it is only the people who make up First Nations who are sovereign of the Crown. But, that is an untenable notion since the people who make up First Nations need to exist somewhere, and they cannot exist on Canadian soil yet, at the same time, not be subject to Canadian law.

[-]

Edited September 9, 2011 by g_bambino

[jacee]

No, the Crown is a part of the Supreme Court (the Queen-on-the-Bench), just as it is a part of the government (the Queen-in-Council); both derive their authority from the Crown.

No, treaties are part of the constitution, and no one part of the constitution supersedes another.

As is the case with any other party with a grievance against the Crown; laws (passed by the Queen-in-Parliament) are often challenged by individuals or groups as being unconstitutional, for example. But, since the Supreme Court's jurisdiction does not end at the edges of the reserves, First Nations and the governing bodies thereof are under the Crown's authority, and therefore not sovereign.

I know you're trying to take this angle that it is only the people who make up First Nations who are sovereign of thYoue Crown. But, that is an untenable notion since the people who make up First Nations need to exist somewhere, and they cannot exist on Canadian soil yet, at the same time, not be subject to Canadian law.

[-]

No you are wrong, but I suppose your delusions bring you some comfort.

Edited September 9, 2011 by jacee